DIY surge protection...

Idiot 'w' thinks his boat will sinks the first time a wave hits.

We can only hope that he's right about that. :)

And so would I. If you are so misinformed as to spend up to $150 for an APC or Monster protector, well, GE sells the equivalent product for $15.

Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection. That 'whole house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in protectors. Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of thousands of joules can create these scary pictures (and the fire marshal who describes why the threat exists:

To avoid that failure, the informed consumer earths one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then those $40 and $150 per appliance protectors for the additional 0.2% protection might do something useful.

But then the IEEE says what a properly earthed 'whole house' protector does:

Why spend $60 per appliance for a plug-in protector once the effective solution is installed? The 'whole house' protector is required to even protect plug-in protectors. But that would not reap obscene profits for the less responsible companies that only sell the ineffective protector. So myths are promoted. Discussion of earth ground avoided. Insult posted by the usual nay sayers.

The informed homeowner installed a =91whole house=92 protector for about $1 per protected appliance. Then may spend tens of times more money for a plug-in protector to add the maybe 0.2% additional protection so that the surge maybe once every 6000 years might be further constrained. Plug-in protectors without a =91whole house=92 protector do not even claim to provide the necessary protection. But companies such as Monster must forget that. A $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts and expensive paint selling for $150. Profit is its real purpose.

Doug White wrote in news:Xns9D43C6A738E52gwhitealummitedu@69.16.186.50:

I finally got an installation manual from Leviton for the the meter housing unit. It is only rated fror 200 amps IF it is installed in a specific Murray housing. I went out and checked, and our housing isn't a Murray. I also studied my meter, and it is one of the new electronic remote read units. It fills up inside of the clear cover much more than an old fashioned meter, and I doubt it would work with the Leviton even if we had the right housing.

So, I'm back to finding a good unit to attach to the breaker panel. It's too bad, because the earth ground has a more direct connection to the meter box than to the breaker panel.

Doug White

So many spiteful accusations. So little knowledge by first learning. He constantly posts accusations without learning the technology. So again, more facts without insult from one who learned this stuff before posting.

In the late 1950s, Bodle and Gresh monitored surges throughout the country. For example, over a six month period in Mt Freedom NJ, that one cable produced 1120 longitudinal surges during 36 thunderstorms. About 31 surges per thunderstorm per cable.

In the mid 1975, Carroll and Miller repeated this study. Over six months in Washington CT, 1230 surges were recorded during 23 thunderstorms on that one cable. Average was 53 surges per storm per cable. Some storms exceeded 100 surges per storm. One storm created so many surges that the system ran out of film.

But Michael Terrell just knows this cannot be. He feels. Therefore he knows. Which is what so many do to know plug-in protectors are effective and to justify personal attacks. Clearly those papers in the Bell System Journals were wasting time. They too should feel rather than waste money on research. Clearly feeling justifies malevolence.

Back to reality. COs suffer hundreds of surges without damage - because that technology was understood even 100 years ago when a carbon block protector was first patented about 1880. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Yawn. So many lies, so few neurons.

Square the above statement with calling those manufacturers "responsible". How can they be responsible if they are selling dangerous and ineffective products?

WoW ! Stop the presses. This is something new. Previously W had always argued that plug-in surge protectors were totally useless or actually dangerous because protection without a short direct connection to earth ground was impossible. Now for the first time, it seems protection is not impossible, but instead has an effectiveness of .2%. At least that's a step in the right direction.

Also, obvioulsy you are grossly misinformed about plug-in surge protectors because good ones can be had for a lot less than $40 to $150 each, let alone per appliance. I have a $25 one sitting behind my TV that has 6 pieces of electronics plugged into it. That works out to $4 an appliance, not $40.

Now lets deal with the frightnening pictures. My W you have been busy searching haven't you? Here's the most serious problem. How many photos could one find of TVs, toasters, stereos or other common appliances that also had failures that caused fires? How many plug- in surge protectors are there that are in use? Probably in the hundreds of millions. So, to find 6 that caught fire isn't something extraordinary. Note that at least some of those are identified as older ones that do not have thermal protection that all new ones must. The rest we don't know how old they were or if they had thermal protection, which they probably did not.

And these units are being indicted for having MOVs. Guess what else has MOVs that are even smaller? Your TV, radio, stereo, dishwasher, oven, etc. So, again, how is it that according to W if you put an MOV inside a plug-in surge protector it's a fire hazard. But put a smaller one inside a plastic radio and it becomes effective protection?

Also notice that NONE of the links said that plug-in surge protectors are ineffective, dangerous and should be avoided. Some of them even talked about how to use them.

Yes and they also show plug-in surge protectors used too and recommend them. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, like W's myth that these companies are "less responsible", while we've shown him over and over again that the major electric gear companies he calls "responsible" also sell them.

=A0>Discussion of earth

Yes, avoided indeed, because W can't explain the contradictions:

How is it that MOVs inside an appliance provide surge protection that W says works, yet MOVs located in a plug-in are not effective?

How is it that MOVs inside a whole house surge protector are peachy keen? They too are subject to the same failure modes after a surge that is too large or after repeated smaller surges. Many of them are also housed in plastic.

If a direct connection to earth ground is the only way to achieve protection, how are electronics in airplanes protected?

Please provide a reference for those numbers, pulled out of thin air. While you're at it, please provide a reference that agrees with you that plug-in protectors are totally ineffective. Or is it now that they are not totally ineffective, just .2% effective?

Also, perhaps you forgot, but I haven't. Still waiting for your link to HD for their 50KA rated surge protector for less than $50.

Not provided - quote or context.

As can be seen from other quotes from w, he completely twists what sources says.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea. But repeating from the NIST guide: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing between power and signal wires.

More complete idiocy. Cite a source. (Hallucinations don't count.)

Continued idiocy.

w is unable to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since

1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

If you count light bulbs as appliances.

Continued idiocy.

But SquareD, for their best service panel suppressor, says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor with ratings of 590J and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. Provide a source for a

30,000A/590J MOV for ten cents.

You forgot "a protector is only as effective as its earth ground." Are you feeling OK?

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - simple questions: Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)?

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Earthing electrodes are connected to the neutral in the meter enclosure? Not the most common practice. (If that is the connection, it removes one of my comments on the suppressor at the meter.)

The breaker panel, I assume, has the service disconnect. That means the neutral and ground are bonded together at that point and it is the 'ground reference point' for the power system. The phone and cable entry protectors should be connected to the earthing electrode wire that connects to the meter. You want the length of the ground wire from phone/cable entry protectors to the common connection with the power system earthing to be short. You also want the distance from that common connection point to the power ground reference point (in the service panel) to be short. Yours is lengthened by the length of neutral from the panel to the meter. If there is a large surge current from power wires to earth, that raises the voltage between power and phone/cable wires. If that is a concern, there are some service panel suppressors that have ports for phone and cable wires to go through (SquareD makes one).

It depends on the utility. Either is acceptable to the NEC, and the distance between the meter and the service panel should be short.

Delta Lighting Arrestors are one common brand, trivial to install.

You can have both an arrestor and a capacitor if you like. Look for LA302R and CA302R if searching the web. The surge capacitor helps the surge arrestor, at some additional cost. They also make larger/industrial units, though doubling up residential units seems to get more bang for the buck than swapping a "residential" for an "industrial", at least at the 120/240 single-phase service point. Keeping the leads as short as possible when installing them on the panel will help them work better.

Several of the panel makers (eg, Square D) have come up with in-panel units that plug in like a dual pole breaker, but they cost more. In theory, they might work better due to less lead inductance as they are plugged right into the bus bars. In practice, they have lower ratings than Delta arrestors available for half the price, probably because they have to fit into the space alloted to two breakers.

Even I would sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you want to buy it. After all, why should I keep you from scamming yourself. Meanwhile, only responsible companies also sell the well proven and effective 'whole house' protectors - no matter how he will spin it into a lie.

Again he reposts the same lie. He has done this often through the years. I did not call protectors "totally useless". But then trader reads what emotions tell him to read. I called them ineffective. The NIST called them "useless":

Ham radio operators who also learn this stuff from professionals, science, and experience say same: "grounding system"

Engineer your station to *keep the lightning out*.

1. High floor hamshack locations need to have their SPG lightning protection at a ground level entry-point. From there, run your coax/ control cables inside. ...
2. Read the PolyPhaser book(s)

So those who use education and science learn from responsible companies such as Polyphase (trader will not)r:

Keep lightning out is about where energy dissipates. Either energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - outside the building. Or energy is inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Ham radio operators get to learn this quicker because Ham stations suffer even more surges.

From snipped-for-privacy@aol.com in "grounding system":

> Trying to engineer for a direct hit is impossible with the light

But again what we know because we learned from science - not propaganda from retail shelves.

Who to believe? People who do this stuff without damage? And who learned basic electrical concepts? Or trader who routinely does his usual attacks. He knows only because sales propaganda and his emotions educated him. His ego will not permit him to admit he was deceived..

None of which changes what the electrically trained knew even 100 years ago. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Attacks will continue. More professionals will be quoted to expose that liar's attacks. As the same posters have done for years - attacks will continue infinitely. Where is that manufacturer numeric spec that claims protection? Been asking those questions for years. Not once did any one provide those spec numbers. No plug-in protector claims protection in the spec numbers.

Where are those spec numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Never provided because it cannot exist. As the NIST said,

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which trader must misrepresent to post more accusations. Where is that numeric spec that provides protection? He never posts specifications - only nasty attacks.

Translations. You said no numbers exist because you never learned how electricity works. Those numbers are from the Bell System Technical Journals. Only one of us learned this stuff.

He said those numbers do not exist. Stated was that telco COs suffer about 100 surges with each thunderstorm. Actual numbers are maybe 30 to 50 surges per cable times how many incoming cables? Well over 100 surges with each thunderstorm. And no damage. Telcos use 'whole house' protectors. Waste no money on overpriced and ineffective plug-in protectors. Therefore have no damage

Yawn is Michael Terrell avoiding his problem: insufficient electrical knowledge. Yawn because he was again caught posting a lie. His insufficient education has been exposed so often that Michael will constantly post disparaging remarks - and no technical knowledge..

Reality remains as it was 100 years ago. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Reality that makes Michael so enraged as to post personal attacks rather than science numbers and professional citations.

.

What did you learn that is current technology? You keep quoting 100 year old data for designs that are no longer used.

What cables? Fber Optic may be bundled, but aren't conductive.

So your "responsible" companies aren't responsible at all.

Poor w doesn't even know what he writes: "A protector is only as effective as its earth ground" "No earth ground means no effective protection."

The NIST called them effective: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Where does Polyphaser says anything about plug-in suppressors.

But those who use education and science learn from responsible companies such as SquareD (for their best service panel suppressor): "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"

SquareD is a truly "responsible" company because it does not make plug-in suppressors.

Who to believe - w, who after years still can't find a source that agrees with him that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Or the IEEE, the NIST, SquareD, and everyone else that say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Poor w is attacked by reality.

w will continue infinitely. His religious belief in earthing has been challenged and there are cracks developing in his universe.

Posted for years and always ignored by w:

to one line]

And posted by others and ignored.

Just like they will be ignored by w now.

Just like w ignores everything that does not fit his little world.

Complete idiocy. A 10 year old could find them.

Where are those spec numbers that list "each type of surge" from "responsible" company SquareD? Missing - because each type of surge is just another piece of bullcrap from w. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That covers all possible combinations and all possible surges.

Still never explained - why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or do they drag an earthing chain)? Why no explanation w??? Is there a massive coverup of all the crashes???

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?

- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"? Why can't you answer simple questions w???

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Even though short, it adds to the length to the common connection point and thus adds to the voltage between power and phone/cable wires. Wire inductance (which you mention) makes the voltage higher that what it would seem. The voltage could be damaging to equipment connected to both power and phone/cable - like TVs. The NIST guide suggests that much of the surge damage may be caused by high voltage between power and signal wires. For the ground wire from a phone entry protector, 10 feet may be too long.

As far as I could see none of the devices were UL listed. That would disqualify their use for me. I also didn't see any that said they met appropriate IEEE standards for protection.

The voltage limiting in over 90% of power circuit suppressors uses MOVs. Would be nice to see someone independent evaluate Delta's use of silicon oxide varistors. Their comparisons are to arc-gap arresters, which are common on circuits over 1000V. (Current use of "arrester" in the NEC is for circuits over 1000V.)

I have not seen any source that recommends using surge capacitors on wiring below 1000V. And recommendations were for a surge cap with an arc-gap arrester.

MOVs are fast enough to not need a capacitor. (Looks like Delta's arresters are too.)

The web site leaves something to be desired. I ordered mine, and in fact the surge capacitors have the end-user UL mark, and the surge arrestors have the UL component mark. Both are the dual Canada/US marking.

The surge capacitor has the additional function/labeling of a facility EMI filter, which seems logical.

I suspect the component, rather than end-user, mark on the arrestors is because they are supposed to be installed inside a box to prevent any problems if they get more surge than they can arrest, and disintegrate. They certainly pass inspections on a regular basis.